How do I review this?

I had the same experience with Kirin Ichiban last night, for what it was I thought it was pretty damn tasty and at 5(ish) dollars a 6 pack I just might buy it again in the future whenever the mood happens to strike. I don't really do reviews on the site, but if I did it would get a pretty high score from me.

 

Well said!!

 

Not that anyone cares by my 1 cent.

You gotta keep style in mind. That's the rules, not review TO style. If I am wrong please someone correct me. So yes it's a light style so I would not expect extreme flavor and would expect a nice carbonation base and drinkable levels. I would also expect enough flavor to enjoy the beer qualities, it should have a nice head though not sticky (no sugar). I would hope for some level of hop character (unlikely but fuck them it's a beer I want some hops even if marginal) and I'd expect the adjunct nature to be limited.

I the flavor was too watery. If I got corn and not malt. if I got no hops. If it was to thin in appearance. if I couldn't get some kinda aroma of something beer like....I'd give it an F as that's what it deserves. if it nails all those thing. It's C, average. If it does something special then I start adding points beyond that.

 

Like times infinity.

I hate when people inject their personal biases into the sensory portion of the evaluation. There is a section for overall impression - do your worst there if you must. But if , for instance, American Light Lager is supposed to have almost no aroma, and yours has almost no aroma (and that means no off aromas, too), then an evaluator is being nothing short of childish if they ding it for not having more of the aroma they would like in a beer.

If someone can't control them self enough to objectively evaluate a beer to its intended style, then they just shouldn't rate it.

 

That's needlessly aggressive. Who says American Light Lagers aren't supposed to have a nose? Who says that Light versions of a style must have their own category at all? Sam Adams makes a perfectly acceptable Light Lager that has nose and taste. I know it's marketing nonsense but its worth noting that they submit that beer not as a "light" lager but simply a lager when it's being judged. Perhaps the argument could be made that its "childish" to rate by marketing instead of by substance.

 

AGREE. People used to give me crap because I tasted no vanilla in a vanilla stout so I marked it 1. I would mark the Old Style I had at wrigley a 4.00 because it was a great American Lager.

 

It's not for me to decide how to define the style. I'm simply saying one should judge to the style as defined. GABF, World Beer Cup (Brewers Association), BJCP, and Beer Advocate all have a defined distinct style for Light Lager. All call for low to no hop and malt aroma. My point, though, was not about the style definition. It is that one shouldn't judge the sensory portions of the evaluation based on individual biases.

 

The miler ads says it is triple hopped.

 

Life is too short to worry about how other people perceive you.

It doesn't matter what you rate it, as long as you explain your rating. Be honest, and defend your position. And if your position is "I honestly don't know how to rate this" put that in your rating.

I once tried Miller 64, and while I wasn't a fan of the style, I gave them props for making a 64 calorie beer. It's good for what it is, even though I don't like what it is.

As long as you back up your position, you can be pleased with your rating, even if the whole world disagrees.